Jules Lepoutre that this order may not be ordered if it would make the person stateless. The second one is section 40(4A) of the 1981 BNA. It targets only naturalised citizens under the same “conducive to the public good” standard – a condition strengthened by the requirement that the individual “has conducted him or herself in a manner which is seriously prejudicial to the vital interests of the United Kingdom.” Notably, this section 40(4A) authorises the Secretary of State to deprive an individual who does not actually possess another nationality, on the condition that the Secretary of State “has reasonable grounds for believing that the person is able, under the law of a country or territory outside the United Kingdom, to become a national of such a country or territory.” Accordingly, the United Kingdom’s legislation, based both on section 40(2) and (4A), empowers the government to target every British citizen – including birthright citizens – on the grounds of vague and discretionary standards – “conducive to the public good” – and is quite soft on statelessness prevention – absolute protection being put aside when “vital interests” are at stake. The British government has made no secret of its intentions. These powers are meant to prevent the return of suspected or convicted terrorists. In February 2014, James Brokenshire, the Minister for Security and Immigration, clearly assured the House of Commons, which was raising concerns about deprivation occurring while British citizens were abroad, that “the Home Secretary takes deprivation action only when she [Theresa May] considers it is appropriate and that may mean doing so when an individual is abroad, which prevents their return and reduces the risk to the UK.”41 Data show that there were only a few cases every year based on section 40(2) of the BNA 1981 (e.g., six in 2011; five in 2012; eight in 2013; four in 2014; four in 2015)42 until the figures exploded from 14 in 2016 to 104 in 2017.43 The last figures recently disclosed by the Home Office indicate that 21 individuals were deprived of British citizenship in 2018.44 Following a Freedom of Information Request that I have lodged, the Home Office has specified that it refuses for now to communicate more recent data, that all the deprivation orders previously identified were adopted based on section 40(2) of the 1981 BNA, and that section 40(4A) has not yet been used. The banishment policy remains current, and the recent case of Shamima Begum demonstrates the use of nationality deprivation as a way to prevent return to British soil. Begum is a British-born citizen, who joined ISIS in 2014 and is now sheltered in a refugee camp in Syria. She was deprived of her British nationality in 2019 on the ground that she “poses a threat to national security.”45 Confirming this policy, a spokesperson of the Home Office recently declared that “Depriving a dual national of citizenship is just one way we can counter the terrorist threat posed by some of the most dangerous individuals and keep our country safe.”46 Germany, following this lead, decided to introduce new provisions regarding the revocation of nationality in case of terrorism. Yet, this country has strong constitutional protection against the loss of nationality. Its 1949 Basic Law specifies: “No German may be deprived of his citizenship. Loss of citizenship may occur only pursuant to a law and, if it occurs against the will of the person affected, only if he does not become stateless as a result.” For a long time, the (amended) 1913 German Nationality Act only provided, in section 28(1), for loss of nationality of the German “who, without the consent of the Federal Ministry of Defence or a body designated by the said Ministry, voluntarily enlists 41 House of Commons (2014). February 11 Debate (vol 575, col 262WH). 42 Freedom of Information Request, 2 November 2015: copy on file with the author. 43 Secretary of State for the Home Department (2018). HM Government Transparency Report 2018: Disruptive and Investigatory Powers (Report No. Cm 9609). Retrieved from here. 44 Secretary of State for the Home Department (2020). HM Government Transparency Report: Powers 2018/2019 (Report No. CP 212). Retrieved from here. 45 Shamina Begum v. SSHD, 2020 SIAC SC/163/2019, at. 16. Retrieved from here. It was unclear whether Begum possessed Bangladeshi nationality, as the UK government claimed, but the court decided that she did. 46 Lizzie Dearden (2020, February 9). “Ministers Refuse to Reveal How Many Extremists They Have Stripped of British Citizenship.” The Independent. Retrieved from here. 10 Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies Working Papers